I believe that the stock market is currently undervaluing Intel and overvaluing Qualcomm. Intel's price to earnings to growth ratio (5 years) is about 0.84 whereas Qualcomm is about 1.12. Given today's stock prices I would put more of my money in the Intel basket than with Qualcomm.
Market understands Intel's product roadmap troubles. Qualcomm larger market value might be correct.
Intel killing itself with pursuit of Moore's Law for no business advantage. I can confirm (ex-mobile designer) 14nm is late, not working. 1272/14nm design shuttle tape outs all pushed out due to problems with process.
14nm has many issues and seriously now SOI being possible fix.
At this stage design teams have unstable 0.1 silicon models. No meaningful Baseband processor design can be started based on current state of 14nm.
Intel seems to have delayed 14 nm due to business reasons, first time I've heard this excuse, wouldnt have thought from Intel.
Here is the original Irish Times article: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/1109/1224326364155.html
Possibly they are cutting training costs, which means Intel is facing tight money conditions now. Yet a quicker ramp to 14 nm wouldn't help? Maybe 14 nm is a small problem compared to something else..
I hear Intel's engineering team came clean and concluded current approach to 14nm would not work after spending $2B.
Plan was to ship 14nm parts in 2013 and now that plan has been scrapped. 0% chance of shipping a single 14nm chip in 2013.
On top of that Intel marketing this year was claiming 22nm was not competitive in market but "just wait until 14nm".
Intel now plans to to ship LTE chips fabricated at TSMC for next 2 years. However, TSMC is business smart. It is not going to give Intel a good wafer price over its long term customers like Qualcomm that buys many more chips in the chipset (wifi, LTE, RF and SOCs chips) unlike Intel LTE with Atom fabricated by an Intel internal fab.
Calling a delayed 14nm "12nm" is genius.
The foundry naming 14/16nm (i.e. which uses 20SOC 64nm metal pitch) shows how bankrupt the industry is on advancing moores laws.
none (as opposed to their public position)are going to volume production at 14/16nm with no die size reduction and die cost increase.
AMD have decided that they are going to leave the Semi-conductor market because they know that they can't make competitive products anymore and that Kaveri is a woeful failure and are embarrassed by the conduct of their fanboys.
AMD bankrupt Q1 2014
I can't resist a shout out to Rodney Smith for pioneering the fabless model over hoots from the "Real men have fabs!" camp. The model has long since been validated, but I'm sorry Rodney isn't still around to savor the latest vindication of his vision.
I am sorry, but the fabless model still relies on SOMEONE having a fab. The whole concept that you can somehow draw excess profit by passing your fab costs on someone else is rather ludicrous. Why would TSMC enable Qualcomm with leading edge process technology if they did not capture a fair portion of the profit? With the fab options of the Qualcomm's of the world shrinking expect to see their wafer costs go up. The fabless model only works for as long as the fab is more or less a commodity.
John.Donovan - NO!. GG - Very true! Intel's understand that their strength is in the fabs. The investment in 14 was not a waste - Intel is poised to take over Mobile even with the current node and sticking with FAB development can produce more than any other investment they can make. Fables is vulnerable in the long run to automated design, FPGA and changing standards as the latest Intel moves will probably show. Instead of Smith I think that it is Jerry who will end up correct. By the way AMD and Global are watching the Intel's moves in Mobile and will probably make a move for it too.
My thoughts used to be like you
But I can tell you it is cheaper to buy wafers/chips at foundry then use Intel internal manufacturing.
How can be? Take TSMC 180nm today. TSMC 180nm 1st came on line 10 years ago making Qualcomm modem chips. 10 years later its now used for PMIC and other chips. Between modems and PMIC, many many other chips were made. 10 years from now TSMC will likely still be making chips (analog?, medical device chips? or something else). Compare and contrast to IDM Intel 's 180nm capacity is scrapped. All Intel's 90nm 65nm and 45nm is even scrapped. 32nm is being scrapped soon.
Now think about this. Intel is spending about $30B US dollars to outfit plants for 22nm and 14nm. Just look out 4 years (Intel's roadmap) when it moves to 450mm wafers at 10nm or 7nm . All that $30B will be scrapped in 4 years. What a expense. Foundry is much more efficient since it makes many many more chips over far longer time.
Also one reason most other companies have given up the Intel practice of short-lived foundries. Intel's business case is kind of an odd-one, anyway... they're after 14nm to keep x86 competitive in mobile against ARM, predicated on the idea of ARM not actually getting even more serious on low power, and of ARM trailing x86 in process. Those were good bets up until now, but then again, Intel is only now starting to nip at ARM's mobile heels.
Intel is too late for mobile just like MSFT. MSFT has however finally got it right and has a nice story going with Xbox, pc, mobile all providing similar UI. Also, msft has caught up to the competition and then some. Intel has a tougher problem to solve. They should spin off the fabs.
Qualcomm is killing it lately, and has become the 3rd lagest chip maker already , with only upside from now on. The only real competitor to them is Samsung now, if they decide to become more serious about dominating the market with Exynos chips. So far they seem to be using them more like "nice to have" chips, only in some of their devices.
 - http://techdomino.com/qualcomm-3rd-biggest-chip-maker-by-revenue
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.